BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FEROZEPUR
C.C. No.229 of 2014 Date of Institution: 9.6.2014 Date of Decision: 23.12.2014
Rahul Aggarwal, Proprietor of firm M/S Saral Stationer, Bazar No.3, Ferozepur Cantt, Tehsil and District Ferozepur.
....... Complainant
Versus
1. Anil @ Gora, Proprietor of Anil Agencies, DTDC Courier and Cargo Limited, Opposite Khalsa Gurudawara, Court Road, Ferozepur Cantt.
2. Munish Sharma, Manager of DTDC Courier Amritsar Branch, 73 City Centre, Opposite Sangam Cinema, Near Bus Stand, Amritsar.
........ Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of
the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
* * * * *
PRESENT :
For the complainant : Sh. Anil Aggarwal, Advocate
For opposite party No.1 : Sh. Rajnish Dahiya, Advocate
For opposite party No.2 : Sh. Vivek Jain, Advocate
QUORUM
S. Gurpartap Singh Brar, President
S. Gyan Singh, Member
ORDER
GURPARTAP SINGH BRAR, PRESIDENT:-
Brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant purchased stationery items from M/S Gian Chand Kapur Chand Jain, Bazar
C.C. No.229 of 2014 \\2//
Bakarwana, Inside Mahan Singh Gate, Amritsar vide bills dated 15.7.2013 and 14.2.2014. There were some defected items for replacement from the above said firm and the same were lying with the complainant and were returnable to said M/s Gian Chand Kapur Chand Jain. Therefore, the complainant sent a parcel of the items for replacement through the courier agency of opposite party No.1 to the above said firm on 9.5.2014 and opposite party No.1 received an amount of Rs.140/- from the complainant against receipt bearing consignment No.D17119920. At that time, opposite party No.1 assured the complainant that the said parcel will be delivered at Amritsar on the next day i.e. 10.5.2014, but the said parcel has not been delivered to the concerned firm at Amritsar. It has further been pleaded that the complainant approached opposite party No.1 a number of times to deliver the parcel in question to the concerned firm at Amritsar, but all in vain. The complainant also served a legal notice dated 15.5.2014 upon opposite party No.1, but opposite party No.1 gave reply to the legal notice that the parcel in question is lying with opposite party No.2 and the same can be got released after paying the fine imposed by Taxation Department to the DTDC Courier Amritsar. Further it has been pleaded that the complainant purchased the stationery items from the above said firm M/s Gian Chand Kapur Chand Jain vide genuine bills and tax has already been paid and the parcel in question is containing items only for replacement,
C.C. No.229 of 2014 \\3//
the complainant is not liable to pay any tax to any authority, as the opposite parties are demanding Rs.2500/- as taxes from the complainant. Pleading deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant has prayed that the opposite parties be directed to deliver the parcel in question to the concerned firm at Amritsar and not to make any illegal demand of any tax from the complainant. Further a sum of Rs.50,000/- has been claimed as compensation for mental agony, pain and harassment and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses.
2. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared and filed their respective written replies to the complaint. In its written reply, opposite party No.1 has admitted that a parcel was booked with opposite party No.1 for its onward delivery to M/s Gian Chand at Amritsar and opposite party No.1 received an amount of Rs.140/- from the complainant against receipt. It has also been admitted that opposite party No.1 assured the complainant for delivering the parcel at Amritsar on 10.5.2014. Further it has been pleaded that the said parcel was rightly sent by opposite party No.1 and departed from its destination through the co-operating agencies for Amritsar. The said parcel was captured by the Taxation Department at Amritsar, which was loaded in vehicle No.PB-08-9686. The parcel was reached Amritsar through opposite party No.2, but the same was captured
C.C. No.229 of 2014 \\4//
by the Department for taxation proceedings for which opposite party No.1 has no control and the matter should have been wind up by the department and the owner of the parcel through the completion of required formalities with the department. Opposite party No.1 disclosed all the things orally to the complainant at the time of his visit with opposite party No.1and further in the shape of reply to the legal notice to the complainant. But the complainant instead of availing remedy against the Taxation Department, Amritsar for releasing the parcel, has filed the present complaint against opposite party No.1. The parcel is still at Amritsar and the complainant be directed to clear hindrance of the Taxation Department regarding his parcel alongwith necessary and required documentary evidence. Other allegations of the complaint have been denied and dismissal of the complaint has been prayed for.
3. In its written reply, opposite party No.2 has pleaded that the parcel/consignment was booked by opposite party No.1 and the contract to deliver at the said destination has been executed between the complainant and opposite party No.2. On 10.5.2014, the parcel/consignments delivered by opposite party No.1 were captured by the Taxation Department and a penalty of Rs.16,275/- was imposed on DTDC Courier Company by the Taxation Department because of fault of opposite party No.1 and the complainant, as requisite documents were neither demanded at the time of
C.C. No.229 of 2014 \\5//
booking of consignment by opposite party No.1 nor the same were handed over to opposite party No.1 by the complainant, which are used to send and receive the parcels/consignments on daily basis. Opposite party No.1 confirmed the same from opposite party No.2 and the information was conveyed to the complainant as per the legal notice that the fine has to be paid by the complainant to get the parcel/consignment released. Therefore, the complainant could get the consignment anytime after payment of fine imposed by the Government Authority, which is not the liability of opposite party No.2 to bear the same. Other allegations of the complaint have been denied and dismissal of the complaint has been prayed for.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-13 and closed evidence on behalf of the complainant. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party No.1 tendered into evidence Ex.OP-1/1 to Ex.OP-1/5 and closed evidence on behalf of opposite party No.1. Similarly, learned counsel for opposite party No.2 tendered into evidence Ex.OP-2/1 and closed evidence on behalf of opposite party No.2.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the file.
6. Booking of the consignment in question by the complainant with opposite party No.1 vide receipt dated 9.5.2014 Ex.C-8 for its onward
C.C. No.229 of 2014 \\6//
delivery to M/s Gian Chand Kapur Chand Jain of Amritsar has been admitted. The grievance of the complainant is that at the time of booking of the consignment, opposite party No.1 had assured the complainant that the consignment will be delivered at its destination on the next day i.e. on 10.5.2014, but the same has not been delivered at its destination by the opposite parties so far. The opposite parties have pleaded that the consignment in question, which was loaded in vehicle No.PB-08-9686, was captured by the Taxation Department at Amritsar and a penalty of Rs.16,275/- was imposed on DTDC Courier Company by the Taxation Department for want of requisite documents and the complainant can get the consignment released anytime after making payment of fine imposed by the Government Authority. As per averments of the complaint, the consignment in question contains some defected stationery items out of the stationery items purchased by the complainant from M/s Gian Chand Kapur Chand Jain. A perusal of copy of VAT Invoices, placed on the file by the complainant as Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-7, reveals that these stationery items were purchased by the complainant against proper VAT Invoice from M/s Gian Chand Kapur Chand Jain and VAT @ 5.5% and Surcharge @ 10% has already been paid by the complainant on purchase of these stationery items. Copy of detail of stationery items Ex.C-9 to Ex.C-11 reveals that the stationery items sent by the complainant through the consignment in
C.C. No.229 of 2014 \\7//
question for replacement are also some stationery items out of the stationery items purchased by the complainant vide VAT Invoices Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-7 for which tax has already been paid by the complainant. On the other hand, no evidence has been placed on the file by the opposite parties that any penalty has been imposed by the Taxation Department on the consignment in question. Even no proof regarding the penalty of Rs.16,275/- allegedly imposed by the Taxation Department on the DTDC Courier has been placed on the file by the opposite parties. Tracking record Ex.OP-1/4 and Ex.OP-1/5 also does not disclose imposition of any fine by the Taxation Department on the consignment in question. Therefore, the complainant is not liable to pay any penalty for the consignment in question and only the opposite parties are liable to get release and deliver the consignment in question at its destination. The complainant has to file the present complaint to seek redressal of his grievance. Therefore, the opposite parties are also liable to pay suitable compensation for harassment and litigation expenses to the complainant.
7. In view of what has been discussed above, this complaint is accepted and the opposite parties are directed to get release and deliver the consignment/parcel in question at its destination without recovering any penalty from the complainant. Further the opposite parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs.3000/- as compensation for harassment and Rs.2000/- as
C.C. No.229 of 2014 \\8//
litigation expenses to the complainant. This order is directed to be complied with jointly and severally by opposite party Nos.1 and 2 within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced
23.12.2014 (Gurpartap Singh Brar)
President
(Gyan Singh) Member
